PDA

View Full Version : Workfare to be imposed in Britain



SarasotaRepub
11-13-2010, 07:51 AM
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9549997) :cool:




Hannah Bell (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-13-10 04:38 AM
Original message Workfare to be imposed in Britain


Edited on Sat Nov-13-10 04:39 AM by Hannah Bell
Britain is being subjected to a savage programme of social engineering, designed to create an economy where millions work for much less than the present £5.93 an hour minimum wage. This centres on plans to introduce workfare for the long-term unemployed, who will be forced to work for their benefit plus a £1-an-hour top-up.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is set to introduce US-style compulsory “workfare”, under threat of withdrawal of benefits to entire families. A new “claimant commitment” will include sterner conditions, notably the threat that unemployed people who refuse community work or the offer of a job may lose their jobseeker’s allowance for three months; if they refuse twice, six months; and three years on third refusal.

The £30 or £40 a week, or £1 an hour, those forced to do such work will receive is one sixth of the present minimum wage and sets a new benchmark that will see it effectively nullified.

The meagre £65 a week unemployment allowance will be removed for three months on a first “offence” of refusing work, six months the second time and three years after a third breach. People will also be subject to penalties for failing to turn up on time or not working hard enough. Those convicted of benefit fraud could also have their benefits stopped for three years. There will be no right of appeal.

The net result will be the mobilisation of the unemployed, including single mothers and over a million of the sick and infirm on incapacity benefits, as a “reserve army of labour”. They will either directly replace existing workers’ jobs or be used to depress wage levels.

This exercise is being sold first of all by whipping up populist prejudice against the supposedly “workshy” and the “feckless”, who are unemployed as a “lifestyle choice”. Prime Minister David Cameron declared that “a life of benefits will no longer be an option”. People “don’t pay their taxes to pay for people to stay on benefit”, he said.


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/work-n13.shtm... (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/work-n13.shtml)



This was posted pretty early this morning so I'd count on a lot more replies to this little gem in da near future. Yes DUmmies...it's SLAVE LABOR!!!!!:rolleyes::D

PoliCon
11-13-2010, 08:01 AM
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9549997) :cool:





This was posted pretty early this morning so I'd count on a lot more replies to this little gem in da near future. Yes DUmmies...it's SLAVE LABOR!!!!!:rolleyes::D

It's criminal! They should take it up at the Hague!! ;)

djones520
11-13-2010, 08:01 AM
You mean the government is going to make people work for the handouts!? THOSE NAZI BASTARDS! :D

hampshirebrit
11-13-2010, 08:01 AM
Jebus ... the link in the dummy OP is to WSWS.org. "Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International" :rolleyes:

At the same time, I've been reading recently as to how most of our resident Islamist trouble-makers here in the UK live off state benefits. I guess working for a living instead of collecting benefit would cramp their style.

SarasotaRepub
11-13-2010, 08:12 AM
Jebus ... the link in the dummy OP is to WSWS.org. "Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International" :rolleyes:

At the same time, I've been reading recently as to how most of our resident Islamist trouble-makers here in the UK live off state benefits. I guess working for a living instead of collecting benefit would cramp their style.

Keep the bastids busy sweeping the streets, less bomb building...:D

Adam Wood
11-13-2010, 08:29 AM
Good grief (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9549997#9550007)!


RandomThoughts (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-13-10 04:45 AM
Response to Original message
2. When people making multi millions can show how they earned it.

Edited on Sat Nov-13-10 04:46 AM by RandomThoughts
Then there will be a valid argument of austerity measures.

They can't show they earned millions, hence until that error in the system is corrected that argument is only class warfare, and not based on either reason nor is it based on justice.

And it definitely is not based on compassion.


If a person works, much of the money from that work goes to people that don't need it. And I would guess that 95% of the people would say they don't work so someone with millions can have a few dollars more.

It is a broken argument.

Taxation of upper brackets is to fix the broken parts of capitalism. There will always be a 5% on the top that will not work for what they have, and a 5% on the bottom that will not work for what they have.

Shouldn't they be treated the same?


Note, what is top and what is bottom can also be debated within that concept.Well, you got one thing right, RandomMoron: what you have is a broken argument.

Here's a hint, fool: "compassion" is not a valid basis for making public policy, doubly so for tax policy.

NJCardFan
11-13-2010, 09:34 AM
There will always be a 5% on the top that will not work for what they have, and a 5% on the bottom that will not work for what they have.

Let me rephrase that. There are those on the top 5% who've already earned what they have and don't necessarily have to work, however, there is the bottom 5% who didn't do a damned thing to get what they have. Huge difference numskull.

Bubba Dawg
11-13-2010, 10:31 AM
It's criminal! They should take it up at the Hague!! ;)

Dude, Al Hague isn't in charge anymore.

Bubba Dawg
11-13-2010, 10:34 AM
Jebus ... the link in the dummy OP is to WSWS.org. "Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International" :rolleyes:

At the same time, I've been reading recently as to how most of our resident Islamist trouble-makers here in the UK live off state benefits. I guess working for a living instead of collecting benefit would cramp their style.

Gives a whole new meaning to the concept of working for Jihaad.

Rockntractor
11-13-2010, 10:38 AM
Dude, Al Hague isn't in charge anymore.

Al Hague was in charge when Poli was frantically swimming upstream, trying to keep from being the wet spot!:rolleyes:

Bubba Dawg
11-13-2010, 10:43 AM
Al Hague was in charge when Poli was frantically swimming upstream, trying to keep from being the wet spot!:rolleyes:

So, how did that work out for him? (Poli that is.)

Rockntractor
11-13-2010, 10:46 AM
So, how did that work out for him? (Poli that is.)

Well, he came up short and he messed up and ate part of the egg instead of swimming right into it so his growth was stunted.

Gingersnap
11-13-2010, 10:57 AM
The outrage among the commies has to do with a basic confusion between charity and social welfare. They championing people living off social welfare but they are viewing it as though it's charity.

Charity is freely given regardless of the merit of the recipient. Charity doesn't come with obligations.

Welfare is redistribution of wealth leveled on the productive for the benefit of the non-productive (whether the non-productive are genuinely in need or just lazy). Because it's a taxpayer-funded program (and not charity), it comes with obligations and responsibilities. That may be as little as just qualifying periodically for the benefit or it may entail training or temporary work.

They are confusing two similar but unrelated concepts.

AmPat
11-13-2010, 11:54 AM
Too bad it wasn't graduated to extinction. Redistribution of wealth via a forced payment through taxes is not a Founding Fathers principle, nor is it Constitutional. We should starve the funding for this crap until it is dead. All forms of social welfare should die a similar death. It won't be easy but it needs to be done.

Now before you libertards have a hissy fit, I realize that this cannot happen overnight. It must be gradually starved.